Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has been an ever-present feature of the political landscape in Northern Ireland for several decades.
But his leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party came to an end on 29 March, when it revealed Donaldson had resigned as chief after he was charged with sexual offences of a “historical nature”.
Born in County Down in the 1960s, he was raised during the Troubles and has been a vocal campaigner for unionism throughout his life.
Donaldson came to the fore after the UK left the EU for his opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol – which he believed undermined Northern Ireland‘s place in the United Kingdom.
Image: DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson did not endorse the Windsor Framework
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Donaldsonwas born in 1962 and raised in Kilkeen in County Down alongside four brothers and three sisters in what he described as “a traditional, rural, home-centred upbringing”.
As a boy, his “childhood innocence was shattered” by the Troubles – in 1970 his cousin Samuel Donaldson, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was killed in an IRA car bombing.
More on Dup
Related Topics:
As a young man, he joined the Orange Order, a protestant group in which he later became an Assistant Grand Master.
He was at one point chairman of the Ulster Young Unionist Council, and also joined the Ulster Defence Regiment – a part of the British Army which mainly consisted of volunteers, who largely spent their time guarding key points, patrolling, carrying out surveillance, and manning vehicle checkpoints.
Advertisement
In 1985 Samuel’s brother, Alex, was also killed by the IRA, in a mortar attack on a police station.
Image: Alex Donaldson was killed in a mortar attack on Newry police station
Run up to the Good Friday Agreement and defection
In the early 1980s, Donaldson worked on Enoch Powell’s campaigns to be elected as an Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) MP for South Down.
Donaldson was later elected as a UUP member of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1985 at the age of 22.
He was elected to the House of Commons in 1997 and was a member of the UUP’s negotiating team for what became the Good Friday Agreement.
However, he voted against the deal in the subsequent referendum and warned UUP leader David Trimble against supporting it.
In 1998, he was blocked from standing in the elections for the Stormont assembly.
Having continued to agitate under Lord Trimble’s leadership, Donaldson left the UUP in 2003 and joined the DUP, having been re-elected to Stormont.
Image: Sir Jeffrey, left, with Lord Trimble, during Northern Ireland peace negotiations in Downing Street in 1997
Brexit, Northern Ireland Protocol and the party leadership
Donaldson has served consistently as the DUP MP for Lagan Valley, but stood down from the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2010, having served in government in Belfast.
He was notable for his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion – which Westminster legalised in Northern Ireland.
In 2016 he was knighted in the birthday honours list for political service.
In the same year, he supported Brexit, and became associated with the Theresa May administration in 2017 as part of the confidence and supply arrangement which saw the DUP support Mrs May’s government in key votes.
However, the party opposed the deal Mrs May put to parliament in 2019.
Since the implementation of Brexit, Donaldson has opposed the Northern Ireland Protocol, which he says undermines the Good Friday Agreement he voted against.
In 2019 he became the leader of the DUP at Westminster, and was elected leader of the party as a whole in 2021.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:12
Donaldson on DUP’s deal decision
He successfully stood in the 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly elections, but has said he will not take up the seat until the situation with the Northern Ireland Protocol can be resolved.
Last year, Donaldson refused to endorse the Windsor Framework, which was intended to resolve issues with the Protocol – and is still sitting as an MP at Westminster.
A growing rift has emerged in Washington, D.C., between the cryptocurrency industry and labor unions as lawmakers debate whether to ease rules allowing cryptocurrencies in 401(k) retirement accounts.
The dispute centers on proposed market structure legislation that would allow retirement accounts to gain exposure to crypto, a move labor groups say could expose workers to speculative risk. In a letter sent on Wednesday to the US Senate Banking Committee, the American Federation of Teachers argued that cryptocurrencies are too volatile for pension and retirement savings, warning that workers could face significant losses.
The letter drew immediate pushback from crypto investors and industry figures. “The American Federation of Teachers has somehow developed the most logically incoherent, least educated take one could possibly author on the matter of crypto market structure regulation,” a crypto investor said on X.
The AFT letter to Congress opposes regulatory changes that would allow 401(k) retirement accounts to hold alternative assets, including cryptocurrency. Source: CNBC
In response to the letter, Castle Island Ventures partner Sean Judge said the bill would improve oversight and reduce systemic risk, while enabling pension funds to access an asset class that has delivered strong long-term returns.
Consensys attorney Bill Hughes said the AFT’s opposition to the crypto market structure bill was politically motivated, accusing the group of acting as an extension of Democratic lawmakers.
Funds held in US retirement accounts by type of account plan. Source: ICI
Opposition to crypto in retirement and pension funds mounts
Proponents of allowing crypto in retirement portfolios, on the other hand, argue that it democratizes finance, while trade unions have voiced strong opposition to relaxing current regulations, claiming that crypto is too risky for traditional retirement plans.
“Unregulated, risky currencies and investments are not where we should put pensions and retirement savings. The wild, wild west is not what we need, whether it’s crypto, AI, or social media,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said on Thursday.
The AFT represents 1.8 million teachers and educational professionals in the US and is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country.
According to Better Markets, a nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization, cryptocurrencies are too volatile for traditional retirement portfolios, and their high volatility can create time-horizon mismatches for pension investors seeking a predictable, low-volatility retirement plan.
Bitcoin and Ether volatility compared to other asset classes and stock indexes. Source: US Federal Reserve
In October, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also wrote to Congress opposing provisions within the crypto market structure regulatory bill.
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, wrote that cryptocurrencies are volatile and pose a systemic risk to pension funds and the broader financial system.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has conditionally approved five national bank charter applications for companies tied to the digital assets industry.
In a Friday notice, the OCC said it had conditionally approved BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos to convert their existing state-level trust companies into federally chartered national trust banks. In the same announcement, the regulator said it had conditionally approved new applications from Circle and Ripple for national trust bank charters.
“New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy,” said Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, adding: “The OCC will continue to provide a path for both traditional and innovative approaches to financial services to ensure the federal banking system keeps pace with the evolution of finance and supports a modern economy.”
Europe’s crypto regulatory framework is entering a new phase of scrutiny as policymakers weigh whether enforcement of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation should remain with national authorities or be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
MiCA, which came largely into force at the beginning of 2025, was designed to create a unified rulebook for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union.
But as implementation progresses, disparities between member states are becoming harder to ignore. Some regulators have approved dozens of licenses, while others have issued only a handful, prompting concerns about inconsistent supervision and regulatory arbitrage.
In this week’s episode of Byte-Sized Insight, Cointelegraph explored what those growing pains mean for Europe’s crypto market with Lewin Boehnke, chief strategy officer at Crypto Finance Group — a Switzerland-based digital asset firm with operations across the EU.
Uneven enforcement fuels calls for oversight
According to Boehnke, the core challenge facing Europe isn’t the MiCA framework itself, but rather how it is being applied differently across jurisdictions.
“There is a very, very uneven application of the regulation,” he said, pointing to stark contrasts between member states. Germany, for example, has already granted around 30 crypto licenses, many to established banks, while Luxembourg has approved just three, all to major, well-known firms.
The ESMA released a peer review of the Malta Financial Services Authority’s authorization of a crypto service provider, finding that the regulator only “partially met expectations.”
Those disparities have helped fuel support among some regulators and policymakers for transferring supervisory powers to ESMA, which would create a more centralized enforcement model similar to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
France, Austria and Italy have all signaled support for such a move, particularly amid criticism of more permissive regimes elsewhere in the bloc.
From Boehnke’s perspective, centralization could be less about control and more about efficiency.
“From just purely the practical point of view, I think it would be a good idea to have a unified… application of the regulation,” he said, adding that direct engagement with the ESMA could reduce delays caused by back-and-forth between national authorities.
MiCA’s design praised, but technical questions remain
Despite criticism from some corners of the crypto industry, Boehnke said MiCA’s overarching structure is sound, particularly its focus on regulating intermediaries rather than peer-to-peer activity.
“I do like MiCA regulation… the overarching approach of regulating not necessarily the assets, not the peer-to-peer use, but the custodians and the ones that offer services… that is the right approach.”
However, he also noted that unresolved technical questions are slowing adoption, especially for banks. One example is MiCA’s requirement that custodians be able to return client assets “immediately,” a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
“Does that mean withdrawal of the crypto? Or is it good enough to sell the crypto and withdraw the fiat immediately?” Boehnke asked, noting that such ambiguities are still being worked through and are awaiting clarity from ESMA.
To hear the complete conversation on Byte-Sized Insight, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!